Thread: The Shkval: awesome new torpedo

Originally Posted by rickusn

Thers are two kinds of ships:

1.) Targets

2.) Submarines.

There are two kinds of soldiers. Snipers...and targets.

"I appreciate your comments, but they really didn't address that point very specifically."

Of course they did.

Which part of does "one thing well" did you not understand.

Its fast. End of story.

This part:

"ie As a practical matter most of their weapons are useless but nevertheless dangerous."

If the warhead would not do significant damage, it's not very dangerous, ie, an ambiguity.

That was the part i didn't "understand".

For my part i'd think the shock damage alone from a warhead that large(460lbs according to Wiki) detonating after striking the hull at 230mph(hmm...ever seen a car impact at 60mph?) would be quite extensive, even if the warhead didn't penetrate, but, alas, i digress until the next expert(real or imagined) comes in at some future date and says it would do a lot of damage.

LOL....

Originally Posted by Galrahn

I'm not convinced a 9000 ton ship compartmentalized under the waterline would take 'heavy damage' from a shkval, in fact I think the total damage would be much less than hitting a sea mine.

The USN is going to have some data somewhere - after all, they were playing around with cavitating torpedoes long before the russians. Although the US inventor of the cav torpedo (plus other UDT weapons) is no longer in US Govt employ (per se), he still is involved with the UDT Conference circuit.

I seem to remember a lecture he gave at a UDT Conf where he went through the list of probs that cav torpedoes had - contrary to some in the (sensational) press, he didn't seem too stressed out by all the hoo har attributed to them.

We'll mark that as another "no" on Shkval being a threat, lol.

I'd say what we have is:
1) USN have no clue about how Shkval will perform, because all of their efforts in "supercavitating weapons" havent yet produced a visible result. No photos, only computer images.
2) VA-111 is a designation of the 20-year old, nuclear tipped version, that was sub-to-sub only and was nuclear-only.
3) Max travel time for "Shkval" is 100 seconds. In that time target need to a) evade b) counter attack (Taking into account that there is no active-passive countermeasures against "Shkval" at all)
- evasion includes like going to full reactor power (for nuclear ships), increasing speed and finally evasive maneuver (if there is a time left for it).
4) I'ts not really a "straight line", it's more like "many curves" weapon. It uses autopilot, and pre-programmable trajectory.
5) Of course original weapon was "nerfed" with conventional warhead, but still there is a big chance to kill a target before it will be able to reach the attacker with its slow Mk48's.
How big is that chance? - noone knows.

Originally Posted by lurker

1) USN have no clue about how Shkval will perform, because all of their efforts in "supercavitating weapons" havent yet produced a visible result. No photos, only computer images.

Well, it is well known that at least 5 western countries have been testing the torp since 1995.

Originally Posted by lurker

2) VA-111 is a designation of the 20-year old, nuclear tipped version, that was sub-to-sub only and was nuclear-only.

And had a range of 5NM, making it the best kill-myself weapon around.

Originally Posted by lurker

3) Max travel time for "Shkval" is 100 seconds. In that time target need to a) evade b) counter attack (Taking into account that there is no active-passive countermeasures against "Shkval" at all)
- evasion includes like going to full reactor power (for nuclear ships), increasing speed and finally evasive maneuver (if there is a time left for it).

But beofre you launch, you need what is called a launch-solution. Which is not very easy to get for a russian sub.

Originally Posted by lurker

4) I'ts not really a "straight line", it's more like "many curves" weapon. It uses autopilot, and pre-programmable trajectory.

How do you manoever a buttel that fast is not comprehensible (especially over 5NM!).

Originally Posted by lurker

How big is that chance? - noone knows.

So you admit you don't know.
Thanx.

They expereiment with "something" for 10 years and nobody seen that "something" yet. As I said - there is no reliable data, not even a single prototype. At least no pictures of it, no tech data, only computer generated cartoons

I am myself not a big fan of the conventional version (afaik, no navy have it in the inventory, not even Russian).
Nuclear-tipped version has clean, understandable operational use.

For the conventional version (there is no designation for it, only declassified "name" "Shkval-E") - I don't see any particular use, except to lauch from small boats or static platforms in closed waters or narrow channels.

I disregard the note about noise of russian subs, since after "Sierra" series - there is nothing to note in particular.

Originally Posted by lurker

I disregard the note about noise of russian subs, since after "Sierra" series - there is nothing to note in particular.

LOL may I have a taste of your mil/industrial background?
(I am gona have fun - LOL!)
Since Gary joined the board, I have a guaranty for mine
How are you doing G?

Originally Posted by Francois

LOL may I have a taste of your mil/industrial background?
(I am gona have fun - LOL!)
Since Gary joined the board, I have a guaranty for mine
How are you doing G?

Not really a big secret. I am a leutenant of USSR air-defence forces (PVO SSSR), retired in 93. Speciality was radars and computers. All other early warning stuff included.
Since then it's just computers, software and hardware.
As of the subject - it's a hobby of mine. Since then I've met many interesging people in the industry and around, made some translations back and forth.

If you are so concerned about "Shkval" rande, and noise of the russian subs - why don't you focus on RPK-7 (SS-N-16) and RPK-2 (SS-N-15)? They are still in the inventory, and execute the same anti-sub function much more effective than "Shkval", IMO.

Originally Posted by Francois

LOL may I have a taste of your mil/industrial background?
(I am gona have fun - LOL!)
Since Gary joined the board, I have a guaranty for mine
How are you doing G?

Good matey, starting to hit some busy parts for work.. I just wish FreqFlyer points were worth money...

I was going to avoid this one but got suckered.... I will close off by saying that I think the USN and French navies have far more to brag about wrt cavitating UDT developments.

Originally Posted by lurker

I disregard the note about noise of russian subs, since after "Sierra" series - there is nothing to note in particular.

Well, even in the noise area, soviets never reached western standards.
But I didn't talk about the noise particularily.
You should understand that to get a good launch solution, you need to be sharp in your ears, quite and sharp in your skills.
Sov never had the three.

To translate, noise is an issue, but reducing it is not the single solution.
Systems need to work properly. And I don't think you can come to 5NM of a western sub without being noticed.

Not even with your 971U-XXX last notch!

Originally Posted by Francois

Well, even in the noise area, soviets never reached western standards.
But I didn't talk about the noise particularily.
You should understand that to get a good launch solution, you need to be sharp in your ears, quite and sharp in your skills.
Sov never had the three.

To translate, noise is an issue, but reducing it is not the single solution.
Systems need to work properly. And I don't think you can come to 5NM of a western sub without being noticed.

Not even with your 971U-XXX last notch!

you also need an acoustically balanced design that works over a range of typical op profiles - and decent signature management (be it active or passive). thats something that has eluded the russians for years....